Dennis Prager has been writing a series of articles making "The Case for Judeo-Christian Values" (currently up to part V). He became a target on the talk.origins newsgroup when he criticized evolution:
The second reason that the breakdown of Judeo-Christian values leads to a diminution of human worth is that if man was not created by God, the human being is mere stellar dust – and will come to be regarded as such. Moreover, people are merely the products of random chance, no more designed than a sand grain formed by water erosion. That is what the creationism-evolution battle is ultimately about – human worth. One does not have to agree with creationists or deny all evolutionary evidence to understand that the way evolution is taught, man is rendered a pointless product of random forces – unworthy of being saved before one's hamster.
Well, everyone has the right to be fuggheaded about one thing, and on his chosen topic, Dennis is exercising this right to the hilt. He claims to have no quarrel with evolution as the mechanism by which God made us, yet he writes passages like the above, and any crackpot with a book claiming evolution is all wrong can get a one-hour interview on his show, with no hint of "equal time" given to anyone from, say, the National Center for Science Education. He has said that few things upset him as much as when people lie, especially to themselves, I hope his blood-pressure medication is up to date.
In any event, the folks at talk.origins piled on with various criticisms. Unfortunately, most, if not all, have been invalid.
It's important, even when criticizing someone who is being deliberately wrong (which I don't believe to be the case with Mr. Prager), to keep the criticism on the constructive side, valid, and well out of the realm of personal attack. There are three reasons for this:
...continued in full post...
1: the target of the criticism may see flawed critiques for what they are, and decide the lack of substantive critiques means he's right.
2: he may not spot the flaw in a critique, and make changes to address the literal words of that critique, thereby doing something that doesn't address the problem.
3: in either case, any spectators (known in online fora as "lurkers" will also be evaluating any arguments offered in a discussion, and they will judge the merits of the case accordingly. Indeed, my usual practice is to avoid arguing evolution with a True Believer anywhere except a reasonably public forum. I know the True Believer is beyond convincing, but the spectators are frequently open-minded and truly open to whoever makes a good case.
So how did the talk.origins crowed do?
Dennis Prager asked:
Would you first save the dog you love or a stranger if both were drowning? The answer depends on your value system.
The first answer with any relevance, from "torch":
The absurd Judeo‑Christian world view has the exact opposite consequence. Someone holding Judeo‑Christian values should save the dog. Judeo‑Christian philosophy views the human life on earth as an infinitely short (by comparison) precursor to an infinitely long existence in heaven. In this absurd world view, the dogs single finite existence is worth infinitely more than humans continued existence in what this irrational philosophy believes is merely a vanishingly short temporary stage before true life begins in heaven. The Judeo‑Christian (or any eternal life religious) world view actually devalues human life ‑ but then its record over the past two thousand years states this case far more eloquently than I could
There are a number of objections to this position. For one thing, nonhuman life is widely regarded as not being able to appreciate its own mortality, and is thus not able to appreciate the gift of a long lifespan. The drowning dog is suffering because of immediate discomfort and/or pain, but is not able to think, "I'll never get to see the pups graduate from obedience school." Indeed, this is one interpretation of the curse of mortality being the result of eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. On the day we ate of it, we became aware of our mortality. In short, the human is considered capable of appreciating that his life has been spared, the animal isn't. (And we may be in for some surprises some day.)
Secondly, if we are here as the result of a divine plan, then we are here for a reason, and it might not be a good idea to short-circuit that plan by checking out early, or causing others to do so.
I'm sure many Christian and Jewish scholars will be able to tell why this "objection" is ill-considered.
The "record over the past two thousand years" is worth considering, but it might be a good idea to look at the real record, especially in comparison with contemporaneous records. Although Christianity might not measure up as well as Christians would believe, I suspect it will fare much better than "torch" seems to think.
Next, "Augray" wrote:
Apparently, the only reason the writer can imagine for saving a stranger is because God tells you to.
Well, when he's not constrained by a word-count, he has mentioned that it's not the only reason, but it's certainly one of the most compelling, particularly in cases when a decision has to be made at once.
In a debate with a very well-educated atheist, Dennis asked what compelling reason the atheist had to violate any law, including laws against murder, if he was sure he wouldn't be caught. The atheist stated there was no compelling reason at all.
From the standpoint of cultural evolution, I believe those cultures that developed taboos against rape, murder, and many other crimes, proved to be fitter than cultures that didn't. As a result, those cultures are still around, and the ones that didn't have those taboos died out. However, part of what made these taboos effective was the notion, true or false, that "God would get you" if you violated them.
I may yet ask Augray if, were he drowning, would he rather a passer-by believe a lie about God watching and judging, or believe the truth that God didn't care, and spend the next half-hour weighing the pros and cons? (No, I don't believe those are the only choices that exist in the world. Those are merely the choices I'm offering Augray in this scenario.)
From rich hammett and others, we have responses like:
He's right, you know. I'm one of those eevil secular humanists, and I would save the dog I love (or the hamster, even) instead of Adolf Hitler, for instance.
Aside from being an instance of Godwin's Law, this is also an example of the fallacy of accident. As stated, the question refers to a typical human vs. a typical dog. If I saw Hitler drowning, the only thing I'd throw to him would be Saddam Hussein, in the hope each would drag the other down. But the question is not asking about Hitler, or about Lassie.
David Vestal adds:
That's one I haven't seen before--the Argument from You Are Special. Formulated: 1) You are very special, much more so than animals. 2) Who could deny that? 3) Therefore, God exists.
Actually, that's known as Wishful Thinking. It's a combination of an appeal to emotion and an appeal to consequences.
The argument runs: We believe we are special, we want to be special, and the existence of God makes us special, therefore God exists.
It should go without saying that whether or not God exists, and whether or not God had us in mind when he created the universe has no bearing on whether belief in God causes people to create a fitter society.
Another variation on the fallacy of accident is contributed by Tracy Hamilton:
Apparently, the only reason the writer can imagine for saving a stranger is because God tells you to.Unless of course He tells you NOT to. Sorry, no room on the Ark for you, fella!
And of course here Noah was under specific orders. A particular time, not intended to be extended across all times and places, in contrast to "do not murder" and "do not stand by the blood of your neighbor".
I think I will eventually place more of this thread, with comments, on my web site.
No comments:
Post a Comment